User talk:Affirmation/Archive 1
Grammar cleanup bot Hey, PapiDmmi! I was just wondering if you could give me a copy of the list of fixes you give for your grammar cleanup on AWB? I would like to convert this to a pywikibot user fix so I can run it more regularly. Thanks! Also, unrelated, but I’m a fan of your changes to the R&C wiki so far. Though I think there’s still a lot to be done, they were badly needed, and you’ve definitely set that wiki in the right direction. When I have more free time, along with the other guys here, I intend to help in any way I can.― 15:49, September 26, 2016 (UTC) :All I use is the regular expression typo fixer with Wikipedia’s typo list. 21:41, September 26, 2016 (UTC) Ideas I like your ideas page. We should implement the first one to the fullest extent. ;) 04:38, September 28, 2016 (UTC) :Thanks. I’m still working on it. 04:38, September 28, 2016 (UTC) Warning My talk page, my rules. Thus you are breaking rules. I dislike unnecessary text styling and markup, not that it even needs an explanation. Also edit warring is against the rules. Kind regards, 22:50, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :I’m editing my own posts and not breaking any rules. Why are you reverting my changes, then? This is ridiculous. :Just because it’s your talk page doesn’t mean that you can decide what people write on it. 22:56, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :: First of all you are breaking rules by edit warring. Secondly, I can decide what goes on my talk page and what doesn’t (aside from changing what other people said, which I’m not). Anyway, you are free to re-add the imgur posts if you want, those I don’t mind. Like I said above, what I do mind is unnecessary text styling and markup, and I’m not going to go in and pick out which things I mind and which I don’t. Not my job. 23:04, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::Is changing the colour of text against the rules? 23:05, September 29, 2016 (UTC) ::::I really feel like you need to re-read his post. The rules of his talk page are decided by him, he's decided that he doesn't want text styling on his talk page, and you edit warred with him over it. ::::Is it our fault for not documenting proper rules on talk pages? Probably. We didn't anticipate something like this when wiki discussion pages aren't used much here. But, in all honesty, there are more important things on wikis to be concerned with than the color of your text on a message.-- 23:09, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::::If there are so many more important things about which to be concerned, why undo my revisions? I simply changed the colour of some text to red. I have no idea what’s so bad about that. 23:11, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::::: Because it looks like shit, that’s why. Blocked you for a day for five hours so you can calm down. 23:12, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::::::I thought that editing others’ talk page posts were against the rules. 23:36, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::::::: I misread the diff and thought you removed the message and were accusing me of vandalism, but I reverted my edit. Kind regards, 23:42, September 29, 2016 (UTC) Look, you guys need to knock it off. None of this is worth blocking each other on completely different wikis (which isn’t something you’re normally allowed to do, by the way) or disrupting the wiki to make your point. All it does is incite edit wars which aren’t fun and don’t get anything done. As far as I’m concerned, though it is an unwritten rule, you're allowed to edit and remove the contents of your own talk page as you see fit, as long as you don’t try and write something that someone didn't say.-- 23:49, September 29, 2016 (UTC) : Actually, requiring a cool off period is worth blocking somebody. And I didn't block him on this wiki for something he did on his. I couldn't care less. I blocked him because he's an unnecessary distraction and it'll be up within the night's end. He on the other hand is either bored and dumb or really immature, either way I don't really care and he's best ignored. 23:51, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :“which isn't something you're normally allowed to do, by the way” :How so? :By the way, I (temporarily) blocked Jak Himself for continuously harassing me. I do not want such a person in our community. 00:00, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :: Against my better judgment I’m going to not ignore you for a sec and ask how you think I "continually harassed" you. 00:05, September 30, 2016 (UTC) ::Jak Himself, please stop provoking people. It’s completely unwarranted. ::PD, you’re not supposed to block people on another wiki for something they did on this one, that’s an abuse of power. It’s better to wait until he harasses you on your community for you to say you don’t want him there. As of yet, he has not done that. ::I suggest you guys both lay off one another and take a break. You're not gaining anything by fighting over this. Let’s get on with improving our wikis properly.-- 00:13, September 30, 2016 (UTC) ::: Well I have nothing better to do and am genuinely curious, and I'm not provoking him. Also I don’t really care that he blocked me on the R&C Wiki so I don’t really see it as an abuse of power so much as a display of it, which, wow, guess that’s impressive? Anyway, like I said, I’m actually curious, so there’s really nothing to "take a break from". 00:15, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :::Repeatedly insulting me, in addition to calling me “Jack” when asked you not to, is harassment, which is why I blocked you on the R&C wiki. 00:48, September 30, 2016 (UTC) ::::Okay, so here's the thing. He didn't do any of that on the R&C wiki, so your block is an illegitimate block. He’s not damaging that community. You may dislike what he's doing on this one, but it doesn't affect the other at all. Furthermore, his worst crimes are calling you "Jack" and "immature", which may not be warranted, but neither was you disrupting the J&D wiki to try and make a point about redirects and talk pages, and edit warring with people, which doesn't help your case and provoked those kinds of responses. I think you need to leave this whole thing alone since it’s not fun and isn’t helping anyone improve their wiki here (I know that I will after this post).-- 01:12, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :::::He’s done more than the things you mentioned, and I don’t want such a person in our community. I have, however, unblocked him. :::::By the way, he blocked very unfairly; all I did was change the colour of the text that I wrote, and he undid it. I was blocked since I needed to “cool off.” It’s not against any rule nor guideline to change your own talk page posts, and in fact, what Jak Himself did was against the rules of Wikipedia, as editing other users’ talk page posts, even if it’s on your wall, is not allowed. :::::The reason he undid my edits was because they looked bad. Is that a good reason to undo my edits and block me? No. I wrote the posts, not Jak Himself. I can do whatever I want to my posts, except change them entirely or remove them, even if it’s on his talk page. 01:15, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :::::: You don't write the rules here, nor does Wikipedia. Anyway, I never actually explained your block, and since you feel it was done unfairly I have a responsibility to explain it (see below). I'm not going to respond to the other things, especially the stuff about my talk page, because I’ve explained it thoroughly and it's available to re-read if that would help you (nor will I talk about my R&C Wiki block since, if you haven’t noticed, I don’t exactly edit there). 01:48, September 30, 2016 (UTC) I apologize for blocking you on the R&C wiki. You did not do anything wrong on said wiki, which is why I’ve unblocked you. I want you to realize, though, that editing other people’s talk page posts is not something you should do, and it is against Wikipedia’s policies. 04:43, September 30, 2016 (UTC) Blocked You've been blocked temporarily (5 hours) for edit warring (here) and disruptive editing or threats to do so (here, here, and here). Further offenses will warrant more severe blocks. For clarification: I did not block you for changing the color of your text. 01:48, September 30, 2016 (UTC) #You kept reverting my edits on your talk page, even though those edits did not break any rule nor guideline. Your reason for that is that they looked bad, which is not a good reason to break the rules, especially when you’re a bureaucrat. #My plans page is not disruptive editing. #Creating a redirect is not disruptive editing. 02:26, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :: (Note that I have decided to forbear in engaging in any further discussion aside from valid inquiries concerning the cool-down block, due to my admin responsibilities.) :: The block was not a punitive block. It's what happens when there's an edit war, it's called a cool down period. The disruptive editing was secondary and largely excused. A cool down period is limited to no more than a day, whereas a punitive block is usually longer. When an edit war results in a cool down period, the person who is blocked is the one who made the initial change (the protocol is that the page goes back to the state it was in originally). :: The previous protocol is that the page is simply protected, but it's bad practice to admin-protect an admin's talk page, thus the instigator in this situation was blocked for a discretionary 5 hours. Blocks that weren't proceeded by a formal warning should generally keep the instigator's own talk page privileges in-tact for appeals or valid inquiries, which was done despite the issuance of a formal warning. :: As the user associated with the talk page in question, I have every right to maintain and present the page as I see fit, just as every user does. The rule is unwritten, as are most rules; the Jak and Daxter Wiki is governed by consensus. If you find yourself in conflict with two different admins who have explained their reversions, it’s likely your counter-reversions are against consensus. The best thing to do in lieu of edit warring is to ask. Kind regards, 04:04, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :::You still have not explained why you undid my changes. You unfairly reverted my changes which I made to my own talk page posts. That is bad practice, especially considering that you are an administrator. 04:10, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :::: If you’re referring to this, that was an accident due to a publish conflict. The rest I refuse to comment on. 04:12, September 30, 2016 (UTC) I’m referring to the font colour changes. I changed some text to red to indicate that the pages did not exist, but you undid them because you thought that it doesn’t look good. Just because it is your talk page does not mean that you can do whatever you please with it. When someone creates a post, it’s that person’s post; you can’t change other people’s talk page posts. A bureucrat should follow the rules, and you are not. First, you edited my posts, and then you undid the changes I made to my posts. 04:16, September 30, 2016 (UTC) Warning I have protected my talk page, as a cool-down blocking is now unwarranted. Instead, further disruptive editing will result in a punitive block. Kind regards, 04:53, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :All right. I just wanted to make some minor stylistic changes to my own posts, but I guess the admins here don’t appreciate that. 04:54, September 30, 2016 (UTC) Buggy move I believe we decided to pluralize since it's specifically about Jak's specific set of buggies, as opposed to the general vehicle type. We've always pluralized such things (see race cars, zoomers, etc.) Either way, you might have a point, but since Tim has always worked really hard to avoid red links, article title renames has to be done systematically instead of forthwith (i.e. fixing all the links before moving the article). This is somewhat difficult since the link to "buggies" is included with a navbox, thus the WhatLinksHere tool is rendered useless. As a result, we always discuss big article renames before moving forward with them. 06:39, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :Oh, my apologies. (It wouldn’t create redlinks, though; it’d create redirect links.) I’ve undone my page move. :According to Wikipedia, however, all articles’ titles should be singular (with a few exceptions, such as when a singular title would be abnormal and awkward, such as “firework” and “scissor”), which I agree with. 06:41, September 30, 2016 (UTC) :: You're right, it wouldn't create red links. I have the "Create redirect" box unticked by default, which does create red links. Either way, it does leave a remaining unnecessary redirect. And yeah, like I said you may have a point, I don't really see a reason to pluralize the article title (nor race car, airships, or zoomers, or whatever else there might be?) Either way in this case I'm going to wait and discuss it with Tim, since he and I usually make these kinds of decisions together. If you want you can add it to the to-do list, which is where we usually make those kinds of proposals. 06:51, September 30, 2016 (UTC) Blocked again I warned you. Punitive block, one day. I'm not even going to bother explaining or debating. You're not doing yourself any favors. 22:26, October 3, 2016 (UTC)